|
High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest..., 951 F.3d 1217 (2020)
<br />final environmental impact statement (SFEIS)
<br />prepared in connection with mining exploration
<br />activities, including road construction, in
<br />roadless areas located on national forest lands,
<br />even though alternative would foreclose access
<br />to existing federal coal leases or private leases
<br />and recoverable coal, and would protect more
<br />land and provide access to less coal than
<br />alternative selected, where alternative appeared
<br />to fit within stated project goals, Forest Service
<br />did not address its objective of providing
<br />management direction for conserving roadless
<br />areas in state, its proffered explanation did not
<br />establish that alternative was rejected as too
<br />remote, speculative, impractical, or ineffective,
<br />and alternative was significantly distinguishable
<br />from other alternatives. 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(2)
<br />(A); 16 U.S.C.A. §§ 528,- 551; National
<br />Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42
<br />U.S.C.A. § 4332(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a).
<br />1121 Environmental Law v-=- Consideration of
<br />alternatives
<br />Where agency omits alternative but fails to
<br />explain why that alternative is not reasonable,
<br />environmental impact statement (EIS) is
<br />inadequate. National Environmental Policy Act
<br />of 1969 § 102, 42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C)(iii); 40
<br />C.F.R. § 1502.14(a).
<br />1131 Environmental Law #-- Assessments and
<br />impact statements
<br />Court cannot consider post -hoc rationalization
<br />for eliminating alternative from consideration in
<br />environmental impact statement (EIS). National
<br />Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42
<br />U.S.C.A. § 4332(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(a).
<br />1141 Environmental Law 0- Mining; oil and gas
<br />United States Forest Service and Bureau of
<br />Land Management (BLM) did not act arbitrarily
<br />and capriciously in eliminating detailed study
<br />of methane flaring alternative in promulgation
<br />of supplemental final environmental impact
<br />statement (SFEIS) prepared in connection with
<br />WESTLAW
<br />modifications to coal mine operator's lease
<br />adding new lands for mine located on national
<br />forest lands, where there was no evidence
<br />that available information was sufficient to
<br />analyze feasibility and environmental impacts of
<br />methane flaring without site-specific exploration
<br />data and engineering designs deemed necessary
<br />by agencies, and Mine Safety and Health
<br />Administration (MSHA) had not approved any
<br />flaring operations at active coal mines. National
<br />Environmental Policy Act of 1969 § 102, 42
<br />U.S.C.A. § 4332(C)(iii); 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.2,
<br />1502.14(a).
<br />1151 Environmental Law •- Remand to
<br />administrative agency
<br />Typical remedy for environmental impact
<br />statement (EIS) in violation of NEPA is
<br />remand to district court with instructions to
<br />vacate agency action, but court may partially
<br />set aside regulation if invalid portion is
<br />severable, that is, if severed parts operate
<br />entirely independently of one another, and
<br />circumstances indicate that agency would
<br />have adopted regulation even without faulty
<br />provision. National Environmental Policy Act of
<br />1969 § 102,42 U.S.C.A. § 4332(C).
<br />*1220 Appeal from the United States District Court for
<br />the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-03025-PAB)
<br />Attorneys and Law Firms
<br />Robin Cooley, Earthjustice, Denver, Colorado (Yuting Chi,
<br />Earthjustice, Denver, Colorado, and Nathaniel Shoaff, Sierra
<br />Club, Oakland, California, with her on the briefs), for
<br />Plaintiffs -Appellants.
<br />John Emad Arbab, Environment and Natural Resources
<br />Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
<br />(Jeffery Bossert Clark, Eric Grant, John L. Smeltzer, John
<br />S. Most, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S.
<br />Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Stephen Alexander
<br />Vaden, Kenneth Capps, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
<br />Department of Agriculture; and Kristen Guerriero, Office of
<br />
|